This paper introduces the special issue dedicated to ‘Psychology and its Publics’. The question of the relationship between psychologists and the wider public has been a central matter of concern to the historiography of psychology. Where critical historians tend to assume a pliant audience, eager to adopt psychological categories, psychologists themselves often complain about the public misunderstanding of them. Ironically, both accounts share a flattened understanding of the public. We turn to research on the public understanding of science (PUS), the public engagement with science (PES) and communications studies to develop a rich account of the circuitry that ties together psychological experts and their subjects.
BenjaminL. T. (1986) ‘Why Don’t They Understand Us? A History of Psychology’s Public Image’, American Psychologist41(9): 941–6.
2.
BoringE. G. (1950) A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3.
BurawoyM. (2005) ‘For Public Sociology’, American Sociological Review70(1): 4–28.
4.
CapshewJ. H. (1992) ‘Psychologists on Site: A Reconnaissance of the Historiography of the Laboratory’, American Psychologist47(2): 132–42.
5.
ChoudhuryS.McKinneyK. A.MertenM. (2012) ‘Rebelling Against the Brain: Public Engagement with the “Neurological Adolescent”’, Social Science & Medicine74(4): 565–73.
6.
DanzigerK. (1990) Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
GoldsteinJ. (2005) The Postrevolutionary Self: Politics and Psyche in France, 1750–1850. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
HabermasJ. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
HackingI. (2002) Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
HallS. (1980) ‘Encoding/decoding’, in HallS.HobsonD.LoveA.WillisP. (eds) Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson, pp. 128–38.
11.
HaywardR. (2012) ‘Inventing the Psychosocial: Stress and Social Psychiatry’, History of the Human Sciences25(5): 3–12.
12.
HermanE. (1995) The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
IgoS. E. (2007) The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
IrwinA. (2001) ‘Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences’, Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
15.
IrwinA. (2006) ‘The Politics of Talk Coming to Terms with the “New” Scientific Governance’, Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
16.
JasanoffS. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
KeltyC. (2005) ‘Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics’, Cultural Anthropology20(2): 185–214.
18.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007) ‘Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics’, Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–97.
19.
LilienfeldS. O. (2012) ‘Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific’, American Psychologist67(2): 111–29.
20.
MalinB. J. (2014) Feeling Mediated: A History of Media Technology and Emotion in America. New York: New York University Press.
21.
MarresN. (2007) ‘The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy’, Social Studies of Science37(5): 759–80.
22.
MarresN.LezaunJ. (2011) ‘Materials and Devices of the Public: An Introduction’, Economy and Society40(4): 489–509.
23.
MorawskiJ. G. (1988) The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
MorawskiJ. G. (2005) ‘Reflexivity and the Psychologist’, History of the Human Sciences18(4): 77–105.
25.
MurphyM. (2006) Sick Building Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty: Environmental Politics, Technoscience, and Women Workers. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26.
NelsonA. (2016) The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation After the Genome. Boston, MA: Beacon.
27.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2013) ‘How Has Neuroscience Affected Lay Understandings of Personhood? A Review of the Evidence’, Public Understanding of Science22(3): 254–68.
28.
PettitM. (2013a) The Science of Deception: Psychology and Commercial Culture in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
PettitM. (2013b) ‘Becoming Glandular: Endocrinology, Mass Culture, and Experimental Lives in the Interwar Age’, American Historical Review118(4): 1052–76.
30.
PettitM. (2015) ‘Subject Matter: Human Behavior, Psychological Expertise, and Therapeutic Lives’, Social Studies of Science45(1): 146–58.
31.
PickersgillM.Cunningham-BurleyS.MartinP. (2011) ‘Constituting Neurologic Subjects: Neuroscience, Subjectivity and the Mundane Significance of the Brain’, Subjectivity4(3): 346–65.
32.
RoseN. (1985) The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics, and Society in England, 1869–1939. London: Routledge.
33.
RoseN. (1990) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.
34.
RoseN. (1996) Inventing Ourselves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RoseN. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
SavageM. (2010) Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
SmithR. (2005) ‘Does Reflexivity Separate the Human Sciences from the Natural Sciences?’, History of the Human Sciences18(4): 1–25.
38.
SmithR. (2007) Being Human: Historical Knowledge and the Creation of Human Nature. New York: Columbia University Press.
39.
SmithR. (2012) Between Mind and Nature: A History of Psychology. London: Reaktion.
40.
SokalM. M. (1987) Psychological Testing and American Society, 1890–1930. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
41.
StilgoeJ.LockS. J.WilsdonJ. (2014) ‘Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?’, Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
42.
TallBearK. (2013) Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
43.
WarnerM. (2002) ‘Publics and Counterpublics’, Public Culture14(1): 49–90.
44.
WynneB. (1992) ‘Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science’, Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
45.
YoungJ. L. (2016) ‘G. Stanley Hall, Child Study, and the American Public’, Journal of Genetic Psychology177(6): 195–208.
